A question for a JW


Can some one inform me on how the JW’s reconcile the blood prohibition to eating a rare steak? Even though the animal is bled there remains blood in the tissue. Is it ok to eat the blood of the animal but not receive the life saving blood of a transfusion? Wouldn’t that be hypocritical ? If there is a prohibition for blood shouldn’t JW’s be veterinarian?


Jehovah’s witnesses reject blood in any form: blood transfusions and eating/ drinking it. They make sure their food is cooked thoroughly.


You’re basically asking if there are bizzare and totally unreasonable/hypocritical beliefs held by the JWs.

The answer is yes.


They justify it by noting that God allowed the Jews to eat animals. They had to be bled, in which most of the blood is poured out and whatever is left is not seen as drinking blood. JWs are very much like Jews and Muslims in the sense that they use the Old Testament to prove a lot of their doctrines. The real hypocrisy is in the use of blood fractions. They are allowed to take all kinds of blood fractions, but not combined in blood or plasma. They can take all the fractions they want, but are not allowed to donate blood. The same is for their use of military and police. They will gladly call the police to risk their lives to protect their loved ones, but do not allow their members to be police officers.


This is not true at all. Most JWs I know that eat steak like raw steaks.


I never thought of that They do use all sorts of fractions but not whole blood.
It makes no sense to me but then neither does their religion. Still hypocritical to me.
They won’t even store up their own blood for a planned future operation.
Thanks for this
God Bless


I’m just sharing what I heard at taught at the Kingdom Hall.


JW’s accept all fractions of blood but water.

It’s an insane position. Just like you don’t eat pizza but can eat all ingredients separately.

And gets more crazy. They accept all fractions of blood (separately) but can’t donate blood…


I am not a member of the Watchtower Society, but I know their cult and belief system well. I don’t know about being veterinarians (just joking :slight_smile: I know you meant vegan) but yes, they interpret this one passage of the Old Testament (of their own version of the Bible) so literally that they forbid blood in any form (even transfusions that can save a life or let someone die, as it has happened).

It is interesting that at the same time they write that Jesus reveals what truly defiles man:

"So he calls the crowd to come near. “Listen and get the sense of it,” he says. “It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”​ Jesus seems surprised when, on behalf of the disciples, Peter asks for clarification about what defiles a man. Jesus responds: “Are you not aware that whatever enters into the mouth passes through the stomach and is discharged into the sewer? However, whatever comes out of the mouth comes from the heart, and those things defile a man. For example, out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, sexual immorality, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man;

So…consumption of blood does not defile man, right? Well, let’s just make an exception there. Blood is the big no-no.

Wait, then…how about Christ’s statement (“whoever drinks my blood has eternal life…my blood is true drink”) which is even found on their home-made Bible? …


The Watchtower Society attempts to justify those words by saying:

"He is showing that all who want everlasting life must exercise faith in the sacrifice that he is to make when he offers up his perfect human body and pours out his lifeblood.

Really? How about the Last Supper? Mt 26:28, “This is my blood of the covenant”? Well, that’s where the home-made Bible comes in handy:

this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’

What do you mean, “means”? Doesn’t your Bible say in 1 Corinthians 10:16…

The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ?

Is it, or is it not a sharing in the Christ’s blood? If it “means” his blood, it is not a sharing in his blood. If the blood consumption was such a big no-no, why would the Christ give such a harsh memorial, even if it were merely symbolical?

In their discussion of the “Passover Meal” they conveniently quote from their version of Luke, which makes it simple to avoid the issue entirely:

[…] Each drinks from the cup, about which Jesus says: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.”​—Luke 22:20. […] Thus Jesus arranges for a memorial of his death […] Jesus says that his blood “is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.” Among the many to gain such forgiveness are his faithful apostles and others like them. They are the ones who will be with him in the Kingdom of his Father.

Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” But some still argue this is merely symbolic. If it were, then it would be an invention of the Catholic Church, a distortion of the true Faith. But the Early Christians understood this very literally.

In the year 140, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

Cyril of Jerusalem, around the year 350, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

The Romans, too, understood that the Christians took this very literally. The references to the “breaking of the bread” in the Acts is a symbol to describe the Lord’s Body and Blood. Early Christians were for 3 centuries an underground Church accused of cannibalism. Concern over pagan misunderstanding led to the adoption of the “arcane discipline”, a self-imposed secrecy, even from catechumens (those studying to join the Church).


Thanks for the verses. I do know them but when I am speaking, to her or rather listening because it is hard to get in a word, I don’t remember them. My mind isn’t as quick as hers. They are at the Hall several times a week being taught their false Gospel from their home made bible.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.